Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Dan B. who wrote (262329)	11/28/2005 12:57:53 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) of 1574039

No, the problem isn't in my presentation. Even the part of my statement you bolded, clearly indicates "unconstitutional recount," not "recount." Not that I didn't lay it all out as anything but your inane interpretation all along. Oh ho, now you want to refine it. Perhaps the problem is in YOUR presentation. Yes indeed. Gore's requests were what the FSC ordered to be done, and which the USSC labeled as unconstitutional. You're confused. Gore's request for a recount did not violate the Constitution. It was not meeting the FLA deadline by 12 December that upset the higher court. Strangely enough, the lower court didn't seem as concerned. And why should an artificial deadline determine the results of the most important election in the land? Makes you wonder what the USSC/Scalia was thinking......or it should?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next